[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Now as to this desperate bit of nit-pickery for diversion maneuvering:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Also the title of this thread is misleading. Rohingya and Muslims are not synonymous.

The Rohingya are a long-persecuted ethnic minority who although are majority Muslim, also include Hindus.

There are many non-Rohingya Muslims in other recognized ethnic groups and in the general population of Myanmar who are not being persecuted and are not involved in this conflict.

The term Rohingya is one Muslims of Rakhine (which is a state in Myanmar bordering Bangladesh) use to describe themselves over the one favored by the natives of Myanmar which is Bengalis. Both terms refer to the geography they claim as origin for the Rohingya muslims. Rohingya refers to Rakhine state. Bengali refers to Bengal or present day Bangladesh.

But yes others can be swept up in the term, just as technically you can mean religions other than Muslim when you use the term "Palestinians". Nevertheless everybody knows who you're talking about in relation to the palestinian conflict. 'It's the economy Muslims stupid.'

This "Rohingya/Bengali" conflict centers in the Northern part of Rakhine state. The population of the area is around 90% Muslim. The insurgency is Muslim initiated with Mujahadeen who have received training from jihadi organizations like Al Qaida. They are now proselytizing or pressuring the rest of the population into joining their revolt.

And make no mistake, they didn't start this fight to free Hindus, Buddhists or animists. They want a Muslim state.

The Rohingya/Bengalis whatever you want to call them have been there for hundreds of years, many were brought as slaves by European colonialists.

The persecution of Rohingya Muslim and Hindu alike also goes back hundreds of years

The Rohingya militant group was first formed in 2012 following riots and tit-for-tat violence that broke out between Rohingyas and locals.


Also there are lots of Christian Palestinians and they are on the same side as the Muslim Palestinians. Palestinian liberation isn't about Islamism.

[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The Rohingya militant group was first formed in 2012 following riots and tit-for-tat violence that broke out between Rohingyas and locals.

Wrong, but at least you admit the Rohinga aren't the locals.

Rohinga muslims have been jihadi since the 40's.

[BeaverFever]

martin14 martin14:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The Rohingya militant group was first formed in 2012 following riots and tit-for-tat violence that broke out between Rohingyas and locals.

Wrong, but at least you admit the Rohinga aren't the locals.

Rohinga muslims have been jihadi since the 40's.

They've been in Burma at least as long as whites have been in North America.

The current group fighting the government was only formed in 2012 but you're right there have been armed indepece movements on and off since WW2, when the Rohingya fought alongside the British in Burma in exchange for an independent state that was never delivered (shocker) and the buddhist Burmese majority fought for the Japanese.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

They've been in Burma at least as long as whites have been in North America.

Even before that. Actually Muslims have been wandering around the area since the 8th century. Mostly scattered groups though. Apparently the Portuguese were bringing Muslim slaves from present day Bangladesh for awhile. The Muslims took over Bengal (Bangladesh) as a Sultanate then starting around the 15th century there was nuanced movement back forth of Muslims between Bengal and Arakan (Rakhine). The real wave into Rakhine from Bangladesh though happened during the British colonial era when the borders were dissolved.

At Wikipedia there's this chart below showing 5% Muslims in Rakhine in 1869 increasing to 25% in 1931:

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

The current group fighting the government was only formed in 2012 but you're right there have been armed indepece movements on and off since WW2, when the Rohingya fought alongside the British in Burma in exchange for an independent state that was never delivered (shocker) and the buddhist Burmese majority fought for the Japanese.

The British left Burma during the second world war when the Japanese attacked. Before they left they made a deal with the Muslims. The British would arm them and they would harry the Japanese forces during the British absence.

However, the Muslims then used the arms to attack not the Japanese, but the infidels of Arakan (Rakhine). The estimate I heard was 50,000 Arakanese killed by the newly armed Muslims. That was when the real conflict between Bengali Muslims and Arakanese unbelievers began. It fades and sparks up, but it's never really stopped since then.

[N_Fiddledog]

$1:

A mujahidin rebellion erupted in April 1948, a few months after independence. The rebels initially explored the possibility of annexing northern Rakhine State to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), but Pakistan rejected this. They then sought the right of the population to live as full citizens in an autonomous Muslim area in the north of the state and an end to what they saw as discrimination by the Rakhine Buddhist officials who replaced the colonial administrators. The immigration authorities placed restrictions on the movement of Muslims from northern Rakhine to Sittwe, the state capital. Some 13,000 Muslims who fled during the war and were living in refugee camps in India and East Pakistan were not permitted to return; those who did were considered illegal immigrants.

The rebels targeted Rakhine Buddhist interests as well as the government, quickly seizing control of large parts of the north and expelling many Buddhist villagers. Law and order almost completely broke down, with two communist insurgencies (Red Flag and White Flag) in addition to the mujahidin, as well as Rakhine nationalist groups, including the (Marxist) Arakan People’s Liberation Party, in the south of the state. An embattled Burmese army, facing ethnic insurgencies across the country, controlled little of Rakhine other than Sittwe. In the violence and chaos, relations between Buddhist and Muslim communities deteriorated further. Many moderate Rakhine Muslim leaders rejected the mujahidin insurgency, even vainly asking the government for arms to fight back.

It was not until 1954 that the army launched a massive offensive, Operation Monsoon, that captured most of the mujahidin mountain strongholds on the East Pakistan border. The rebellion was eventually ended through ceasefires in 1961 and defeat of remaining groups, leaving only small-scale armed resistance and banditry. Partly in response to mujahidin demands, partly for electoral reasons, in 1961 the government established a Mayu Frontier Administration in northern Rakhine, administered by army officers rather than Rakhine officials. But the 1962 military coup led to a more hardline stance toward minorities, and the Mayu Frontier Administration was dissolved. This prompted attempts to re-form the mujahidin movement that failed to gain significant local support.

In 1974, inspired by the rise of pan-Islamist movements in the world, the Rohingya Patriotic Front armed group was formed from remnants of earlier failures. It split into several factions, one of the more radical of which became the Rohingya Solidarity Organization (RSO) armed group in 1982. The RSO split in 1986, giving rise to the Arakan Rohingya Islamic Front (ARIF) splinter; in 1998, the two groups formed a loose alliance, the Arakan Rohingya National Organisation.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the RSO had small bases in remote parts of Bangladesh near the Myanmar border but was not thought to have any inside Myanmar. In its highest-profile attack, in April 1994, several dozen fighters entered Maungdaw from Bangladesh, including a group landed by boat in Myin Hlut village-tract, south Maungdaw. On 28 April, bombs they planted in Maungdaw town caused damage and several civilian injuries, and fighters followed up with attacks on the town’s outskirts. The group did not receive strong local support, and security forces, alerted by informants, quickly defeated them.

https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south- ... hine-state

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Also there are lots of Christian Palestinians and they are on the same side as the Muslim Palestinians. Palestinian liberation isn't about Islamism.

Less every year.

$1:

In 1950, Bethlehem and the surrounding villages were 86 percent Christian. But by 2016, the Christian population dipped to just 12 percent, according Bethlehem mayor Vera Baboun. Across the West Bank, Christians now account for less than 2 percent of the population, though in the 1970s, Christians were 5 percent of the population. In Bethlehem, the traditional birthplace of Jesus, today there are just 11,000 Christians.

And don't be ridiculous. Without Muslims there would be no conflict in Israel and the disputed territories.

Same thing for Northern Rakhine.

[stratos]

$1:

Does anyone actually have a video clip or quote of Obama calling it "workplace violence"? That doesn't seem to exist on the internet. And I mean Obama himself actually saying it, not some internal memo from some pentagon legal adviser.

This is as close as I get, did a quick but not extensive search.

Six Years Later: Obama Finally Calls Fort Hood a Terrorist Attack
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/.../obama- ... st-attac...

[N_Fiddledog]

The Obama administration designated Fort Hood as workplace violence.

$1:

* In May 2012, Senator Joe Lieberman and Representative Peter T. King proposed legislation that would make the victims of the shooting eligible for the Purple Heart.[48] In the 113th Congress, Representative John Carter introduced legislation to change the shooting designation from "workplace violence" to "combat related" which would make the victims of the shooting eligible to receive full benefits and the Purple Heart

* The United States Department of Defense and federal law enforcement agencies had classified the shootings as an act of workplace violence.[9]

* The National Defense Authorization Act 2015 authorizes the Department of Defense to award Purple Heart Medals to those wounded during the attack. The award was previously denied due to the categorization of the event as "workplace violence".

* As of 2012, the Department of Defense classifies the case as one of workplace violence. A spokesman for the Department stated,

* A group of 160 victims and family members have asked the government to declare the Fort Hood attack an act of terrorism, which would mean that injuries would be treated as if the victims were in a combat zone, providing them more benefits.[8] US Representatives John R. Carter and Michael T. McCaul wrote, "Based on all the facts, it is inconceivable to us that the DOD and the Army continue to label this attack ‘workplace violence’ in spite of all the evidence that clearly proves the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terror."[8] Carter and McCaul drew their conclusions from their interpretation of existing investigations.[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort ... benghazi-8

In any case it has nothing to do with the Rohingya. The term "Workplace violence" was offered here as an addition to a list of examples of weasel terms used to diminish the force of a more accurate term.

Beave then noticed the official group think, sponsored version of Rohingya Muslims as victims was no longer flying as contradictory facts were introduced, so he fell back on the ol' "progressive" divert from the subject to technical nit-pickery of something that has nothing to do with much of anything trick.

[BeaverFever]

Just I said, you'll notice Congress had to change a law for Fort Hood survivors. So the claim that "Obama tried to claim Fort Hood was workplace violence " is a lie just like everything else.


As for the Rohingya thinf, ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. I guess after defending white supremacists this is the next step in your journey

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

As for the Rohingya thinf, ethnic cleansing is ethnic cleansing. I guess after defending white supremacists this is the next step in your journey

Ethnically cleansing an aggressor population like the Rohingya is far different from ethnically cleansing non-aggressors like the Christians in the Muslim-occupied West Bank and parts of Lebanon.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Just I said, you'll notice Congress had to change a law for Fort Hood survivors. So the claim that "Obama tried to claim Fort Hood was workplace violence " is a lie just like everything else.

The Obama administration designated the Fort Hood terror attack as workplace violence. Obama showed he was on board with the policy by refusing to specify it as terrorism in spite of the uproar over the accreditation. He's the guy at the top. It becomes his policy. Shorthanding the claim to "Obama said" is common and expected.

You diverting a discussion on a different issue to nit-pick that unrelated one to death is weasely and stupid.

[N_Fiddledog]

As to the actual issue of this thread it's starting to remind me of that other one discussed here from a couple of months ago concerning Bosnia.

Remember? The idea was Bosnia was initially presented as genocidal horror show of only one side's aggression on the poor victimized Muslims. Some events were isolated to show one side, then the emotion of that was hyped. Horrific possibilities were reimagined from guesses and breathlessly reported in the Clinton friendly press.

Years later we of the public discovered it had actually been a much more nuanced and historically motivated issue, with both sides believing they were tit for tat.

Same thing here, except the facts are coming out early, and some don't seem to like that.

[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Just I said, you'll notice Congress had to change a law for Fort Hood survivors. So the claim that "Obama tried to claim Fort Hood was workplace violence " is a lie just like everything else.

Only so the victims could get Purple Hearts and other medical care due them.

Thanks, Obama.

[N_Fiddledog]

Partly, but as explained at the link Stratos posted it was also America being hit by smaller attacks such as Fort Hood on a continued basis to the point Obama and his administration were starting to look pretty clownish by refusing to acknowledge them as terror attacks for 6 years.

The quote below is written in the original Prog, but I think most should be able to translate it by now.

$1:

“As we’ve become better at preventing complex attacks like 9/11, terrorists turn to less complicated acts of violence like the mass shootings that are all too common in our society,” he said. “It is this type of attack that we saw at Fort Hood in 2009, in Chattanooga earlier this year and now in San Bernardino.”

It's also worth noting that even though Obama was finally admitting they were terror attacks he continued to refuse to identify the elephant in the room. He would not reference them by their more accurate designation - "Islamic Terrorism".